this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
732 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19136 readers
2213 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be removing the judiciary from the abortion debate. In reality, it simply gave the courts a macabre new task: deciding how far states can push a patient toward death before allowing her to undergo an emergency abortion.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit offered its own answer, declaring that Texas may prohibit hospitals from providing “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant patients by performing an abortion—withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

The ruling proves what we already know: Roe’s demise has transformed the judiciary into a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 228 points 10 months ago (2 children)

a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

Except it is every clear that they don't care about the life of the fetus either since the publicized cases pretty much all involve a fetus that would die within hours of birth.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 70 points 10 months ago (2 children)

6th Grade Biology taught us that an 'ectopic pregnancy' is, by definition, unviable. By their own Book, God creates ectopic pregnancies so They can have the pleasure of destroying an innocent soul.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 113 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Reminder that, in Ohio, Republicans pushed a bill that would have required doctors to reimplant ectopic pregnancies in the uterus. A medical technique that doesn't exist. So doctors who didn't do this non-existent technique would be "guilty of murder" and doctors who tried it and failed (because it's not a thing we can do) would also be guilty. And either way, the woman would likely die.

[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well, that's the most insane thing I've ever seen in politics, bravo

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's the thing. It's okay when their god kills a fetus for fun. But we're never supposed to no matter what.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 41 points 10 months ago (3 children)

They literally want to investigate every miscarriage as a potential murder

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yes. The objective is to punish women for the crime of having sex.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Punish poor women.

The Rich and Politician daughters and mistresses will still have full access to abortions under the guise of health retreat/2 week vacation/etc etc.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Sex with anyone but them, mind. You know they'd have no issues flying their mistresses to a more permissive state for an abortion.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago

Having unauthorized sex. Look at that GOP woman who was having three ways to 'save her marriage.' It was fine for her to have relations with another woman as long as the owner approved.

[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which is absolutely insane, especially considering 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage (and that's just confirmed pregnancies! The actual number is likely higher!)

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

From what I recall it's actually the majority of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, it's just that they usually occur before the woman can even really notice she was pregnant or is having a miscarriage. From the woman's perspective she may of had a particularly unpleasant monthly period when it was actually a miscarriage. It's one of those things no one likes to acknowledge because people find it disturbing and it completely undermines a lot of assumptions people like to make about "the miracle of life".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Meanwhile, the backlog of untested rape kits keeps growing and growing...

Priorities.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And in any event, once it's out of the womb, it needs to get a job and pull itself up by its bootstraps and eventually stop eating avocado toast if it wants to afford a studio apartment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 128 points 10 months ago (15 children)

Wait wait wait….. wasn’t “death panels” what the right was screaming about with Obamacare?

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 80 points 10 months ago

Death Panels are only good when Insurance Corporations and Republicans are making the decisions.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago

You're thinking of the bad kind of death panels. Those are the good kind of death panels, obviously.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Tremble@sh.itjust.works 122 points 10 months ago (9 children)

People who believe in a sky god are creepy as fuck.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Maybe so, but the war against abortion isn't based on religious texts. It was ginned up by pieces of shit who tied it to the bible artificially by painting a complex issue as a black and white case of "murder". Which is bullshit to anyone remotely understanding of reality.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It may not be directly tied to religious works. However, religion is being used to prop it up, as usual. I still agree that people can practice what they wish, though I'm beginning to feel strongly that religion is a plague and we'd be better off without it. Yet, I suppose, evil fools would just find something else to cower behind.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Most of religion isn't based on religious texts. The texts are just the marketing material. Once you're inside they're largely ignored.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 27 points 10 months ago (4 children)

1000 flies eat shit. 1000 flies can't be wrong.

That's their mentality.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 100 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Something needs to be done about the 5th circuit. They routinely make decisions that are directly counter to established law and the Constitution itself.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago (4 children)

but do not counter state laws

the US has been letting states make decisions instead of making federal laws stick just like cannabis is federally illegal unless the state says so

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

State laws don't trump federal laws. Weed is still federally illegal and you can't own firearms if you smoke, regardless of what your state says.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 92 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I remember going through Roe v. Wade in law school and thinking how shaky the legal foundation was. This is a great case study of why we need to formally adopt laws in congress and not just rely on the whims of the court.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (8 children)

You're not wrong. No one wants to hear it, but Roe was reasoned terribly. They attempted to appease everyone by protecting abortion but setting limits.

While laws are a better avenue, I do not believe Congress has the authority to regulate abortion. From where does the authority arise, interstate commerce?

The Supreme Court could have ruled that the most basic and fundamental right, which is woven throughout the constitution, is a right to bodily autonomy. The idea of controlling one's own body is supported by a host of amendments. Incorporate the right with the 14th and abortion is protected everywhere.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] hansl@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

As long as we have a congress that’s split around the 50/50 line on issues like these, laws will never get passed.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Even if a law got passed, it would get repealed when the other side gets the majority. This needs a constitutional amendment and I really don't see that happening ever.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 56 points 10 months ago

I remember how US conserves would look at euthanasia laws in the Netherlands and falsely claim that there are death panels there who decide when you will die.

Turns out they weren't just only lying, they were fantasizing

[–] Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago

I'm so glad I got my tubes removed when I did, because there's a long waitlist now. My sister just gave birth and had severe complications ... I cannot imagine if we had lost her over a law like this. It sounds harsh, but you can always make another baby if the uterus is saved (or adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of orphans in the USA).

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yep. When DARVO-ists like Palin were bleating about "death panels" they were demonstrating their usual projection.

Conservatives and the Republicans are a death cult. They should never be allowed into office, ever.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 29 points 10 months ago (3 children)

withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

Where an individual reasonably believes an attacker poses a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm, any person is justified in using any level of force - up to and including lethal force - necessary to stop the attack.

If the claims made in this article are accurate (and they very well might not be), then In setting the standard of care at the point where a person reasonably fears "grievous injury or near-certain death", the courts may have inadvertently justified the use of force in self-defense and/or defense of others against any executive using the power of their office to attack an individual.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 17 points 10 months ago

Indeed, language like this puts a bullseye on healthcare professionals that already have/had one because of COVID and the fascists spreading wild conspiracy theories. This is almost a 2 birds with one stone stroke for them, you make abortion something any medical professional wants to distance themself from out of fear of their own life, but you also help undermine the whole medical field by would-be parents afraid to go to a hospital with complications as they may not come back out (or having suffered irreversible health effects).

[–] Aviandelight@mander.xyz 15 points 10 months ago (9 children)

While this would in theory work for justifying the actions of the mother it does nothing to help enable medical professionals in providing care. The court ruling basically tells all medical professionals that they may not perform abortions for any reason. It's a death sentence pure and simple and now the hospitals are only allowed to sit back and watch.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

The conservative judges would have quite the quandary should a dying woman shoot her ectopic fetus.

[–] virku@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

What the actual fuck.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is going to put a lot of doctors and medical people in a dangerous spot.

Good luck hiding behind laws when you have a distraught husband who has just watched his wife, and the child he hoped to soon meet, die slowly and horribly.

But it's also illegal for our hypothetical heartbroken and angry husband to beat a doctor to death, or just shoot them because texas, right? That makes it all better I'm sure.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 15 points 10 months ago

When did they try to hide this? They've been pretty explicit about this for a while now

load more comments
view more: next ›